D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Grac]

Wealth accumulation was an issue in previous edition. What do you do with all that gold when magic items just aren't available? So, you pulled your money and bought ships, built fortresses, and did other RP things. Either that, or your DM houseruled a Magic Mart, which was pretty common.

The reason for that, is that high level characters (which in early D&D meant level 9-ish) were not meant to be running around dungeons. They were powerful, kings and bishops tried to gain favor by giving them titles, land, vassals, but that meant duties in war and peace. So yes, you 'did RP things', but that's what the point of the game was. If you want to have huge amounts of gold and not have to worry about stupid magic item inflation, then this goal of the high-level game needs to be beaten into people's heads.

[Craft (Cheese)]

And, honestly, good riddance to that. If I want to run a social campaign or a dungeon crawl I'll do either one at any level I damned well please.

[Grac]

And, honestly, good riddance to that. If I want to run a social campaign or a dungeon crawl I'll do either one at any level I damned well please.

And when the game is made to handle that sort of thing as default, well, then we see the absurdities of the christmas tree characters because if your group wants to play a dungeon crawl outside its level appropriateness, then what else are they going to spend their gold on? And if it can be assumed that they will waste their gold on combat trinkets and not status symbols, well we should be clear about how much we expect at any given level... And so the WBL, the bonus inflation, and the relegating of big-ticket non-combat items to the back ground.

[Craft (Cheese)]

And players spending all of their money on combat gear in a combat-centric campaign is a problem... why?

By the way, I'm not trying to defend 3.5/4E here, I just think building the assumption of a mid-campaign genre change into the system is patently ridiculous.

[Siegel]

And players spending all of their money on combat gear in a combat-centric campaign is a problem... why?

By the way, I'm not trying to defend 3.5/4E here, I just think building the assumption of a mid-campaign genre change into the system is patently ridiculous.

Have you read Moldway edition D&D?

------------

About Minis in modules:
I think this will lead to railroading. When you drop 60 bucks on this box you want to use all those minis. If players find ways arround important combats that use a lot of those cool minis you will feel cheated. You payed for them and now you not gonna use them? So you will railroad them into these fights.

[Stubbazubba]

And players spending all of their money on combat gear in a combat-centric campaign is a problem... why?

By the way, I'm not trying to defend 3.5/4E here, I just think building the assumption of a mid-campaign genre change into the system is patently ridiculous.

I both agree and disagree. Obviously, as a game, it should not be changing how its played at mid-level arbitrarily. Unfortunately, as D&D has consistently proven, you can't tell very many interesting stories at (3.5) level 18, when the answer is literally just change reality until the problem is gone, and certainly looks nothing like a level 3 dungeon. Your game either needs to have the discipline to keep its range of power levels a heck of a lot tighter, or you inform your players early and often that as your power increases, the game changes in different ways, but they're just as enjoyable (preferably the higher game modes would expand the mechanics of the lower ones, creating a smooth and intuitive transition). Either of those works, depending on implementation, but you have to broadcast the desired experience to your players clearly.

[Kurald Galain]

By the way, I'm not trying to defend 3.5/4E here, I just think building the assumption of a mid-campaign genre change into the system is patently ridiculous.

I don't. If you can expect to do the same things at every level, then the concept of level becomes meaningless. For instance, I like the idea of level-1 PCs being vulnerable; anyone who doesn't want that amount of danger can always opt to start at a higher level.

Likewise, defeating a dragon is something that should not happen at level 1: it is anticlimatic if one of the most iconic and dangerous beasts gets taken down by the weakest kind of adventurer.

[Jeivar]

I only recently found out about the upcoming fifth edition. What are the major differences from Pathfinder/3,5? Are they doing anything new with the classes or feats or leveling system or whatever?

[Kurald Galain]

I only recently found out about the upcoming fifth edition. What are the major differences from Pathfinder/3,5? Are they doing anything new with the classes or feats or leveling system or whatever?

Well, you can download the playtest material and find out yourself. Or, you could read this excellent summary. Note that the game as a whole isn't out yet, so large parts of it are still unknown.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I don't. If you can expect to do the same things at every level, then the concept of level becomes meaningless. For instance, I like the idea of level-1 PCs being vulnerable; anyone who doesn't want that amount of danger can always opt to start at a higher level.

Likewise, defeating a dragon is something that should not happen at level 1: it is anticlimatic if one of the most iconic and dangerous beasts gets taken down by the weakest kind of adventurer.

That's not quite what I meant. "You move on from fighting goblins to dragons to balors" is just fine. Incomparable benefits gained with levels (like Teleport) are also just fine.

What I find ridiculous is "Okay, you've hit level 9. Sell your weapons because the game system says you're not supposed to fight anything else for the rest of the campaign." I realize this is (likely) hyperbole when it comes to AD&D, but my point is this sort of transition should be left up to the group, not to the game designer.

[Kurald Galain]

What I find ridiculous is "Okay, you've hit level 9. Sell your weapons because the game system says you're not supposed to fight anything else for the rest of the campaign." I realize this is (likely) hyperbole when it comes to AD&D,

It is :) It just comes from different assumptions. Okay, you've saved the realm from the evil dragon and got a boatload of treasure... what would your character do with that? Are you going to spend it all on booze and wenches, or are you going to build a castle for yourself? And if you do, what happens next? It's the same design space as 4E's epic destinies (which also occur at a fixed level). And yes, you can always opt not to build a castle (or wizard tower, or thief guild, etc), but there are just rules that tell you what happens next.

And this isn't retirement either. It means a few months of downtime, but then the next threat appears and who do you think people are going to call for aid? Frankly I like downtime: it makes little sense for people to level from 1 to 20 in a matter of weeks. The plot tends to work better if the DM occasionally makes a few weeks pass between sessions while the PCs relax (or craft or research or whatever).

[Craft (Cheese)]

It's probably just because I haven't played AD&D at all but when people talk about that aspect it always sounds like they're trying to say combat isn't supposed to happen *at all* after 9th level.

[Yora]

Where did you get that idea?

[Craft (Cheese)]

From statements like this:

And when the game is made to handle that sort of thing as default, well, then we see the absurdities of the christmas tree characters because if your group wants to play a dungeon crawl outside its level appropriateness, then what else are they going to spend their gold on?

[kyoryu]

From statements like this:

Saying that the presumption is that players will do things like build castles hardly means that's the only thing they're allowed to do.

It's probably worth noting that the original campaigns tended to have more than one character per player - so if your high level was building castles, you'd still go adventuring with your other characters.

[Draz74]

It's probably just because I haven't played AD&D at all but when people talk about that aspect it always sounds like they're trying to say combat isn't supposed to happen *at all* after 9th level.

Nah ... my long-running 2e character's most numerous and memorable battles were mostly in defending his castle throughout his teen levels. Sprinkle in a dash of inter-henchmen politics and the occasional world-threatening quest hook that made him leave the castle in those henchmens' hands, and voila ...

[Craft (Cheese)]

Fair enough. Still though, I've stumbled upon discussions that go like this more than once while browsing the WotC forums (not so much here):

"The fighter sucks in combat compared to the wizard after a certain level!"

"True, but in AD&D this didn't matter because the high levels were all about castle-building and gaining titles, which the Fighter is best at for arbitrary reasons, not combat. We should go back to that!"

[Seerow]

Fair enough. Still though, I've stumbled upon discussions that go like this more than once while browsing the WotC forums (not so much here):

"The fighter sucks in combat compared to the wizard after a certain level!"

"True, but in AD&D this didn't matter because the high levels were all about castle-building and gaining titles, which the Fighter is best at for arbitrary reasons, not combat. We should go back to that!"

From what I can tell it's about 2-3 really vocal people who actually believe this. Most of the rest of the WotC forums just believe what was level 1-6 in 3.5 should be level 1-20 in 5e, even if they don't really recognize this or admit it.

[Kurald Galain]

"True, but in AD&D this didn't matter because the high levels were all about castle-building and gaining titles, which the Fighter is best at for arbitrary reasons, not combat. We should go back to that!"

Well, that's a bit exaggerated, but the point is that 2E actually has mechanisms to balance casters against non casters (and this is one of them), that 3E threw out. So even though 2E isn't really balanced, it actually does a better job at balance than 3E does.

Another example is automatic spell disruption if you get hit (and you become easier to disrupt if you use higher level spells), long memorization times, a slower XP track, and that you can't buff saving throw DCs (thus higher level enemies will make most of their saves; in 3E that's the other way around).

[Clawhound]

There's a huge tension created by going up in levels, as that does change how the game feels.

In 1st and 2nd, the change in the game just came naturally with the story. You spent a long, long time leveling up, and you had lots of opportunity to do things like secure fortifications and settle lands. Sooner or later, the players decided to play the castle game.

3.X never solved this internally. Or, it did solve it by making the highest levels so un-fun that many groups just chose to reboot their campaigns. ;)

In 4th, they created tiers and recognized that the feel of the game changes as you advance in level. You can't really help that.

E6 solved this by just stopping the accumulation of levels. There's no reason, in any edition of D&D, that you can't choose the levels that "feel" the most right and keep yourselves there. Presumably, you do this because this is where most players in your group have the most fun. Which is to say, players like the fantastic, but they only like it finitely fantastic. Past a certain point, the fantastic gets so fantastic that they stop identifying with the setting.

[hamlet]

Well, that's a bit exaggerated, but the point is that 2E actually has mechanisms to balance casters against non casters (and this is one of them), that 3E threw out. So even though 2E isn't really balanced, it actually does a better job at balance than 3E does.

Another example is automatic spell disruption if you get hit (and you become easier to disrupt if you use higher level spells), long memorization times, a slower XP track, and that you can't buff saving throw DCs (thus higher level enemies will make most of their saves; in 3E that's the other way around).

I wouldn't say that AD&D was not balanced, but that it relied strongly on a very different concept of balance than the strict numerical parity that WOTC editions strove for, and failed to acheive. I've always been a strong fan of AD&D's style of balance, actually, rather than the "everybody can contribute equally in all situations" stuff.


And for the record, I think that D&D Next has done a fair job of bringing the fighter back to the forefront of an adventuring group. At our table, he was, really, the most valuable character to have around most of the time when it came to actually walking into a room, though that might actually have had something to do with the way the character was played by our player . . . as a berserking blender, really. He was, especially after finding a suit of plate armor that fit him (which I rolled randomly for), the best able to absorb damage and dish it out. Hold the line and just plow through enemies like a bulldozer as required.

I know this is like to change, given what I've read of folks' opinion of the fighter and how it is "boring," but I can always dream.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And for the record, I think that D&D Next has done a fair job of bringing the fighter back to the forefront of an adventuring group. At our table, he was, really, the most valuable character to have around most of the time when it came to actually walking into a room, though that might actually have had something to do with the way the character was played by our player . . . as a berserking blender, really. He was, especially after finding a suit of plate armor that fit him (which I rolled randomly for), the best able to absorb damage and dish it out. Hold the line and just plow through enemies like a bulldozer as required.

I know this is like to change, given what I've read of folks' opinion of the fighter and how it is "boring," but I can always dream.

I'm curious -- did you also have the Warrior Cleric in the party?

[hamlet]

I'm curious -- did you also have the Warrior Cleric in the party?

Yes, we did. Though that player found a tougher time trying to figure out what particular niche that PC was intended to occupy. Same, actually, goes for the Cleric of Pelor. It felt, to them, that the Cleric's niche was not as well defined as it had been in previous games. Wasn't clear if they were supposed to wade into battle and thwack things, or were supposed to be heal bots, or something else. They just didn't have anything that defined them as apart from the other characters.

Personally, I kind of liked the clerics, but I can sort of see where they're coming from since they realized fairly quickly that healing magic, and the guy who could use it, became much less important when you factored in hp bloat and how very easy it was to get all your hit points back (i.e., healing is just too freakin' easy).

The thief (I will not call it "the R word") was another table favorite as they really started to abuse the hiding ability to get advantage, and my inability to roll perception checks successfully, though they never bothered to use him, really, for scouting purposes.

The wizard's player had a lot of fun coming up with innovative uses for spells. Using Ray of Frost to coat the bugbears' gong with ice to dampen the sound. Using Mage Hand to poke the hobgoblin chief's eyes three stooges style, which I ruled in the end gave him one round of disadvantage in combat and sight related checks, which the players really liked. Using Mage Hand as a faultless oil delivery system, which was then set alight by torch bearing characters. Using Mage Hand to open suspected trapped doors/chests from a distance. He really liked Mage Hand, and in the end, I think that spell kind of negates some of what makes the thief character important if it's unlmited use. But that's a minor thing, really.

They all, ALL OF THEM, hated how healing works in the new edition. Having HP represent an abstraction of energy, luck, etc., works fine for them, but then having all HP restored after a night's rest, even going with the metaphor that once reduced to 0 HP you're actually wounded, makes no sense, and breaks the game sensibility to them. There has to be some real consequence of being reduced to 0 HP beyond "you fall down for an extra couple hours."

They really liked the advantage/disadvantage system and spent a good bit of time bargaining with me over what would and would not grant/constitute advantage at any given moment. I like it a lot better than applying fiddly little modifiers to every roll.

[Seerow]

Yes, we did. Though that player found a tougher time trying to figure out what particular niche that PC was intended to occupy. Same, actually, goes for the Cleric of Pelor. It felt, to them, that the Cleric's niche was not as well defined as it had been in previous games. Wasn't clear if they were supposed to wade into battle and thwack things, or were supposed to be heal bots, or something else. They just didn't have anything that defined them as apart from the other characters.

Personally, I kind of liked the clerics, but I can sort of see where they're coming from since they realized fairly quickly that healing magic, and the guy who could use it, became much less important when you factored in hp bloat and how very easy it was to get all your hit points back (i.e., healing is just too freakin' easy).

So let me guess, the Guardian Cleric (you know, the guy with more AC and features focused on defending) just passed on the full plate to the Fighter, because he had no idea what his role was?

Because seriously, the guardian cleric's role is literally "Fight as good as or better than the Fighter". The Laser Cleric's role is literally "Blast as good as or better than the Wizard", both get a splash of healing thrown in.



Also, the pcs getting 1dx worth of healing for free each day made the clerics feel like their healing was useless? Or was it the recover all hp in an extended rest? Because if it's the former, I'm calling shenanigans. The hit dice healing system is objectively crap, and either cleric contributes far more to healing.

[kyoryu]

Fair enough. Still though, I've stumbled upon discussions that go like this more than once while browsing the WotC forums (not so much here):

"The fighter sucks in combat compared to the wizard after a certain level!"

"True, but in AD&D this didn't matter because the high levels were all about castle-building and gaining titles, which the Fighter is best at for arbitrary reasons, not combat. We should go back to that!"

That's a weird point. I'd say the "balance" was more about the fact that, given that PC death happened relatively frequently, getting a high level wizard was actually something of an accomplishment. That, and multiple characters in the campaign meant that any imbalance was only in play part of the time.

[hamlet]

So let me guess, the Guardian Cleric (you know, the guy with more AC and features focused on defending) just passed on the full plate to the Fighter, because he had no idea what his role was?

Because seriously, the guardian cleric's role is literally "Fight as good as or better than the Fighter". The Laser Cleric's role is literally "Blast as good as or better than the Wizard", both get a splash of healing thrown in.



Also, the pcs getting 1dx worth of healing for free each day made the clerics feel like their healing was useless? Or was it the recover all hp in an extended rest? Because if it's the former, I'm calling shenanigans. The hit dice healing system is objectively crap, and either cleric contributes far more to healing.

Actually, no, she held onto her plate armor throughout. Eventually, she figured out a happy medium of learning that "fight as well or better than the fighter" was actually not at all the intent, but that she was much better off in a defensive position, putting herself between the nasties and the squishies.

I'm not saying it's a design flaw, I'm saying that the group I was running had difficulty pinning the clerics down themselves. This is from a group of mixed players, some from 3.x and some from AD&D and prior. Nobody was able to immediately satisfactorily come to grips with the purpose of either cleric because "with a splash of healing thrown in" is counter entirely to what a cleric "should be" in pretty much everybody's perception there. Especially since healing magic is . . . superfluous in some regards here.

[HMS Invincible]

I have to disagree here. I really like how they made the heal spells part of something else. I always feel so lame when I'm the cleric because I have to spend actions healing as opposed to doing something productive. All healing does is let someone else be productive. I hope they explore more heal+something else combo spells. The cleric should be a divine warrior based in magic, more paladinish than healbot.

[Seerow]

Cleric hasn't been a dedicated healer since AD&D. I doubt it's ever going to go back to that. If that's what your players are hoping for, then I don't know what can help them.

[Jerthanis]

The thief (I will not call it "the R word") was another table favorite as they really started to abuse the hiding ability to get advantage, and my inability to roll perception checks successfully, though they never bothered to use him, really, for scouting purposes.

Odd, even when I granted our thief automatic stealth without checking to make sure she maintained the requirements for rolling it and without bothering to check each monster's perception against her steath roll, the thief STILL seemed totally worthless compared with the Fighter or Moradin Cleric. Attacking for slightly more than double damage every other round is only slightly better than just attacking normally every round, and since pretty much everyone else was better at each individual attack, the Thief was collossally unimpressive. It only really contributed when the boss monsters with 90ish HP rolled out, and even then, she accounted maybe 40% the monster's HP.

[Yora]

The cleric should be a divine warrior based in magic, more paladinish than healbot.

Which they have been for the last 12 years.